Ben B you are gravely mistaken.  Please read the Republican Senate report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

How about the flood of US content (since COVID) into AU has a social affect .. w/o tariffs and it looks like we will have to pay.

7.  Rapidly adopt the next "new best thing', irrespective of what it is.

You're wrong Michael Trump had no ties to Russia in 2016 it was a hoax lies from the left with misinformation and disinformation and Adam lied to the media had no facts or proof. The Muller report was full of lies and disinformation which you didn't read as those reports are dull and boring which those reports only need to be 5 pages at most not hundreds of pages which is a waste of paper.

And for the recored I voted 3RD party in 2020 & 2024 as I don't vote for the 2 evils ever and I'm proud of that fact and it isn't a vote for Trump, Biden, or Kamala Harris it was one less vote for all of them. And it's time for a strong 3RD parties to light a fire under the 2 party system that is what the problem is as both sides are party over the country which is sad.    

A tax on online advertising has compelling economic case made by nobel prize-winning economists, as I wrote here. https://www.linkedin.com/article/edit/7323133478831538176/.

But the tax should be levied on the monoply digital platforms - NOT on the creators of the ads.

Don't let anyone get away with saying that 2016 Trump campaign's involvement with Russia is a hoax.  Read the Muller report itself, not the adulterated version Bill Barr presented. Better yet read the Republican Senate report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.  Let there be no doubt that Trump is quite good at revising the history he does not like.  We are in deep sh*t right now and letting the lies live on is one of the problems. 

So, according to this survey streaming garnered 55% of daily viewing while "legacy TV" got only 30%. Does that mean that digital video--social media, YouTube, etc,--- accounted for only 15%, Wayne?If so, that means that if we define "TV" as linear plus streaming---but not "digital video"--as Nielsen seems to, that streaming's share of viewing was 65%. Seems rather a high figure to me.

I was Pee-Wee Herman for Halloween in 1988 and going to the mall got a lot of It's Pee-Wee. Sounds like a good and interesting doc and I watched Pee-Wee's Playhouse on Saturday Mornings on CBS. 

Joe, just out of curiosity, how do you feel most national branding advertisers--the big upfront spenders----define "TV"? With a few exceptions--and there always are some--in my experience they think of TV as professionally made content viewed on a TV set's screen with the content   either attained via linear means or via streaming. And they want their commercials to be positioned in breaks within such content that do not appear randomly --interrupting scenes---nor do they want the ad time seller to invite audiences to zap said commercials if they desire.

What do they mean by professionally made content?

Anything  put out by an entity that is established as a producer of "TV" shows- ranging from talk shows to talent contests or "real housewife" shows to the evening news, "Wheel Of Fortune", NFL games,or a police -detective drama--and I'd toss in most feastue films, too. They don't regard grainy reruns with poor sound of a public domain movie--or an old sitcom or a home made video about someone's pet poodle, or a video telling us the true story about Marlon Brando--like who he supposedly hated. As for length, make it at least a half hour --24 minutes--- duration--- and don't place any commercials in "pre-roll" spots .
please--with three seconds to zap them.

Frankly, most if not all of the ad folks I talk to define "TV" in this manner--and I tend to agree with them. That doesn't mean that they shouln't use social media at all. But very few upfront planning operations I have seen or heard about ask the brands to state their digital video needs--at least not for now.

@Ed Papazian: To clarify, it's not how I think, it's how people and organizations we cover -- in this case, the IAB, Guideline and Advertiser Perceptions -- think. I wrote about their findings and how they categorized things.

If you want to know what I think -- personally -- it's that if it's a "TV-like" experience, it's television to me. If it's not, it's something else.

If you look at some of our coverage in recent years about how various industry bean-counters have been adapting and evolving their "line items" -- GroupM in particular -- media categorization is getting blurrier and more fungible than ever, because of the nature of didital media.

Case in point: YouTube is now the biggest audio medium in the world, based on the fact that they pay more to license music than any other platform. But how many people think of YouTube as "radio," "audio," or an analagous category?

Spend up while ratings decline, except for sports which scored big! Perhaps a push driven by tariff threats? 

Joe, I'm surprised--bsed on the headline--- that you think of "linear TV as "TV" and CTV plus digital video as something else--I guess its "digital TV"? We think of "TV" as linear TV plus CTV and that's where our focus is on the upfront.

You asked about the CTV share relative to linear and , of course, we estimate that each year. For the current season, the "prime time" upfront generated $18.4 billion for linear and $11.1 billion for streaming--which gave the CTV component 38% of the total--though, unlike linear, there's no telling when a CTV viewer will be watching. However, if one includes all of the other upfront buys--the various non-prime dayparts for broadcast TV, cable and national syndication ---the total ad spend for the upfront rose to about $42 bilion. So, naturally, the CTV share is much smaller that 38%.

Finally, as regards that study about the "must buy" standings of the various "TV" platforms, I don't see it as applying to the upfront in any way. Even if the sample is a perfect representation of the entire TV time buying marketplace and the answers are taken literally, many of the platforms are not competing for upfront ad dollars--except only very indirectly. For example the sales promotion arm of a large natinal TV advertiser may consider social media a "must buy" for short term sales promotional activities--but the same company's branding people, using a different agency and having long term branding goals---are likely  not even thinking about social media when upfront planning time nears. Their focus is on what the company feels is national TV--namely linear TV and/or CTV.

Thanks for the history. But it's not very analogous to Ukraine's current situation. 

Imagine bands of German commandos, likely born and raised here, had penetrated the White House to assassinate President Roosevelt and his staff until they were killed in gunfights, perhaps in the China Room. Russia had ruled Ukraine outright until only a few decades earlier, and leaving its puppet Yanukovich in charge until he was run out.

Strong word, puppet. After shooting several dozen unarmed citizens to keep in power, failing, and fleeing to Russia, I think it applies.

You used another strong word, cronies. That sounds like Zelensky runs a crooked regime and wants to keep it that way. Like all of the former Soviet Bloc nations, Ukraine inherited a bureaucracy so dysfunctional that corruption was the only was anything got done. It's changing now, a requirement of Ukraines' new partners in the EU and the Ukrainian people themselves. Weapons, for example, depend on it.

@Ed Papazian: You are technically correct that the IAB study did not explicitly ask for share of upfront spending that will go to linear vs. digital video this year. We'll all have to wait for an upcoming Media Dynamics analysis to learn that.

My point was that linear won't be the "star" this upfront, because if you've attended any of the big linear networks upfronts in recent years, you know how much they tout non-linear in their pitches.

Does Media Dynamics have any numbers on the share of the linear networks' upfront dollars came from CTV/streaming services vs. linear network programming?

Lastly, I did not include this in my column, but its from interviews Advertiser Percpetions did with 368 ad executives about what parts of the mix they deem to be a "must buy" this year:


% THAT CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING A “MUST BUY”

(i.e., NECESSARY FOR MEDIA PLAN)

CTV 68%

Social video 62%

National broadcast/cable TV 39%

Online video (OLV) 37%

Audience-addressable TV 33%

Local broadcast/cable TV 33%

Audience-indexed linear TV 27%

Joe, I don't think that digital video has killed "the upfront star". And by upfront I gues that they mean linear TV, not CTV, which got about $11 billion in upfront ad dollars for this season. Also, did they cite how much viewing time sports gets on digital video---and by sports I mean pro team sports --- baseball, football, basketball and hocky. Not much--at least for now. I would add that CTV aside, the majority of digital video ad messages are 15 seconds or shorter and attentiveness studies indicate that they perform well below their "TV" counterparts in getting people to look at them as well as in dwell time. In contrast, about half of linear TV and CTV upfront bought commercial positions wil be :30s and roughly half of the program viewers will look at an average ad placement.

The probability of any further post here by me is slim to none. On the infrequent occasions that I have opened a MediaPost issue, all I read are left leaning statements supporting economic disinformation that DIMS (who seem to have always over populated the advertising industry) enjoy reading.

If we don't control our economic future,  China and the rest of the world will. Some say that the Trump Administration is moving too fast. With a national debt equal to our GDP, they really need to move even faster.... on all fronts.

I encourage everyone to watch the video posted 3-days ago on YouTube featuring Scott Bessnt's speach at the IIF addressed to world finance leaders. Ater that, read Ray Dalio's book, THE CHANGING WORLD ORDER, Why Nations Succeed and Fail.

This commentary has no business being posted here.

@Jason Kanefsky: Re. reason: Because MediaPost covers a variety of marketing categories including politics, and that's what this column is about (Hence the name "Red, White & Blog: Truth, Mud and the American Media." If people don't feel that is relevant, they can opt-out or ignore it just like our coverage of any other marketing category. The "scorecard" you refer to is data from a leading marketing research firm -- Ipsos -- tracking perceptions about brand America worldwide, and among Americans of all parties. It shows that perception of America's brand as the leader of the free world fell below water two times in recent history -- Trump 1.0 and 2.0.

We've also been covering how marketers in various other categories have been adapting their investment spending in response to macro economic and geopolitical changes elsewhere on MediaPost.

@Gary Lumsden: You are welcome to comment on anything we publish, including other readers' comments, but please refrain from personal attacks.

Whether you agree or disagree with Trumps politics, I'm not sure why this is an opinion piece for MediaPost.  It would be interesting if it discussed global client investment in US market or perhaps there will be a bias against American agencies.  This just reads like a 'scorecard' of sorts without a meaningful conclusion.

Mr. Lumsden-
we will find out in a year or so how smart Trump's so-called strategy actually is. Of course he will change course multiple times by then so will be hard. The only question though will be are we better off than we were in November 2024. Stay tuned.

Mr. Goldstein,

If you had any brains you would be dangerous.

Everyone who does have at least half a brain should wait 12-months to revisit the stupidity of your banter.

I'll simply start and stop with just a few of key points.

-Why are over 100 countries trying to urgently negociate more acceptable trade terms that the Trump administration is demanding if they disrespect us?

- Why are all key European countries still buying T Bills if they disrespect us.

- Why is the entire world listening to EVERY directive being issued by Scott Bessnet if they disrespect us.

Adam,

Very informative article about the behind-the-scenes conflicts that led to

the resignation of “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens, and the two minutes “CBS Evening News” co-anchors Maurice Dubois and John Dickerson gave to the subject to end their newscast this week.

But the last sentence really confused me when you wrote, “Although this broadcast-ending story about its own company and colleague was only two minutes, it was likely of little concern to news viewers watching at home.”

What proof do you have of that? Do you think the two-minutes was too inside baseball, as the saying goes? Or are you resigned to the fact that most news viewers don’t care about the erosion of a free press through coercion by the government? Maybe it was a lament. In any case, I hope you’re wrong. Or we may lose the support of the American people who want an independent, free press.  

 

The double standards here are delicious:

Generally, the people that are fans of "Good Night, Good Luck" applaud the stand against McCarythism, yet had no issue with the false claims of Republicans/conservatives colluding with Russia. 

"60 Minutes" only a few months ago aired a piece advocating the jailing of ordinary citizens for posting "misinformation" on the Internet. Where was the press slamming this?  Why are those that advocate for freedom of the press have issues with regular citizens practicing free speech?

And remember, "60 Minutes" and CBS purposely hid Biden's mental decline because their main job is to elect the Democrat party to power.